I agree with the 2nd amendment right, and I am an NRA member. I believe everyone has a right to keep and bear arms....

....but this decision has unintended consequences. It should have been fought and defeated at the state or city level of government wherever the law was first inacted. Using the 14th Amendment to defend the 2nd amendment at a local or state level is an abuse of Federal power. The Federal Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the Federal Government. It is not supposed to limit the power of the state or local government. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The 14th Amendment changed that and we are not better off as a result.

It is my opinion that the 14th amendment gave too much power to the Federal govt' and diminished the republican (note little r) form of goverance as it was originally intended by the founding fathers. This case is a prime example of the consequences of that amendment, but since those who typically support limited government also support the second amendment, then the infringement of liberty will most likely be over looked.

If we were truly free people of sovereign states as intended, the government at any level would have no say in your natural right to defend yourself. Any form of government that dared voice an opinion over your natural rights, would be shut down. Clearly that isn't the reality we live in.

Don't celebrate the power of government over your liberty just because you happen to agree with the result of their decision. The decision next time may not be in your favor. The fact that they have the power to make such a decision, regardless of the outcome, should trouble anyone who celebrates individual liberty.

I agree with the 2nd amendment right, and I am an NRA member. I believe everyone has a right to keep and bear arms....

....but this decision has unintended consequences. It should have been fought and defeated at the state or city level of government wherever the law was first inacted. Using the 14th Amendment to defend the 2nd amendment at a local or state level is an abuse of Federal power. The Federal Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the Federal Government. It is not supposed to limit the power of the state or local government. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The 14th Amendment changed that and we are not better off as a result.

It is my opinion that the 14th amendment gave too much power to the Federal govt' and diminished the republican (note little r) form of goverance as it was originally intended by the founding fathers. This case is a prime example of the consequences of that amendment, but since those who typically support limited government also support the second amendment, then the infringement of liberty will most likely be over looked.

If we were truly free people of sovereign states as intended, the government at any level would have no say in your natural right to defend yourself. Any form of government that dared voice an opinion over your natural rights, would be shut down. Clearly that isn't the reality we live in.

Don't celebrate the power of government over your liberty just because you happen to agree with the result of their decision. The decision next time may not be in your favor. The fact that they have the power to make such a decision, regardless of the outcome, should trouble anyone who celebrates individual liberty.

(This should go over like a lead balloon)

I saw it more like the government pointing out to/reminding the States what they originally signed up for. As in - they are shutting down the State governments that dared voice an opinion over our Constitutional rights. I believe that it was the point of the Federal Constitution to limit the power of the State or Local governments in order to protect the people. If it did not, States would do battle with each other over their own laws.

I agree with the 2nd amendment right, and I am an NRA member. I believe everyone has a right to keep and bear arms....

....but this decision has unintended consequences. It should have been fought and defeated at the state or city level of government wherever the law was first inacted. Using the 14th Amendment to defend the 2nd amendment at a local or state level is an abuse of Federal power. The Federal Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the Federal Government. It is not supposed to limit the power of the state or local government. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The 14th Amendment changed that and we are not better off as a result.

It is my opinion that the 14th amendment gave too much power to the Federal govt' and diminished the republican (note little r) form of goverance as it was originally intended by the founding fathers. This case is a prime example of the consequences of that amendment, but since those who typically support limited government also support the second amendment, then the infringement of liberty will most likely be over looked.

If we were truly free people of sovereign states as intended, the government at any level would have no say in your natural right to defend yourself. Any form of government that dared voice an opinion over your natural rights, would be shut down. Clearly that isn't the reality we live in.

Don't celebrate the power of government over your liberty just because you happen to agree with the result of their decision. The decision next time may not be in your favor. The fact that they have the power to make such a decision, regardless of the outcome, should trouble anyone who celebrates individual liberty.

(This should go over like a lead balloon)

Just one question/statement though, There has to a point where the Government has the right to limit what we can do For the safety of other people and thier rights. The line is what is argued about. This, IMO, is just the line getting set back closer to what most on here would be happy with.

I agree the states should have more power then the federal government about what goes on in that particular state, up to and including succession from the union if that state and its people feel the need (wait...didn't we go through that one before?) but I also believe that everyone has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend themselves and their country, from its own government if need be. I'm kinda torn on this one, not sure which is the greater evil here.

I saw it more like the government pointing out to/reminding the States what they originally signed up for. As in - they are shutting down the State governments that dared voice an opinion over our Constitutional rights. I believe that it was the point of the Federal Constitution to limit the power of the State or Local governments in order to protect the people. If it did not, States would do battle with each other over their own laws.

The Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal Govt., and anything not expressly granted to the feds falls to the states to decide on thier own, for themselves.
Why would one state fight another over any law a state made for itself, if it does not affect the other states?